Ask HN: Aren't We All Believers?
12 comments
I believe in God. I believe that Jesus will return and take his followers home. If Jesus did not rise from the dead I am to be pitied. If he did rise from the dead, I look forward to meeting him. My beliefs are simple and profound. I am not confused.
> Everything can be explained away by science?
There's so much to talk about in that post, so I'll pick one.
Science is the process by which we test hypothesis to see if we can repeat outcomes. It does not work if the outcome is not repeatable. That leaves a lot of room for things like God and the supernatural. "Creation", for example, is not a repeatable event. We can test hypotheses around the notion, but we lack the time and power to enact it in such a way where it would constitute a proof.
So no, we cannot explain things away through science, we can only increase our knowledge, which in sum total for the whole of humanity is very small --- which is ultimately meaningless. (Ecclesiastes)
Some interesting side paths: If 2 billion people in the world are Christian, can we infer through collective experience (scientific hypothesis tested) that there's something behind belief? It's a fascinating question. And one that gets interpreted all sorts of ways.
There's so much to talk about in that post, so I'll pick one.
Science is the process by which we test hypothesis to see if we can repeat outcomes. It does not work if the outcome is not repeatable. That leaves a lot of room for things like God and the supernatural. "Creation", for example, is not a repeatable event. We can test hypotheses around the notion, but we lack the time and power to enact it in such a way where it would constitute a proof.
So no, we cannot explain things away through science, we can only increase our knowledge, which in sum total for the whole of humanity is very small --- which is ultimately meaningless. (Ecclesiastes)
Some interesting side paths: If 2 billion people in the world are Christian, can we infer through collective experience (scientific hypothesis tested) that there's something behind belief? It's a fascinating question. And one that gets interpreted all sorts of ways.
In my own epistemological thinking, I like to distinguish between "belief" and "faith".
Beliefs are convictions based on observations of phenomena for which no satisfactory empirical explanation has been found. Their key properties are that they are required for an understanding of the world, and they are capable of being modified or supplanted. On this definition, all human knowledge necessarily rests on a body of tacitly accepted beliefs.
Faith, in the other hand, characteristically has no reason for being. That is, it is a conviction, or set of convictions, that are superfluous to an understanding of the world. It also typically deep-seated within the psyche, so that the abandonment of faith usually leads to severe trials of readjustment, if not downright nihilism.
This is not to disparage faith, as much as it might seem so. It is just an attempt to distinguish and separate between two concepts, the confusion of which makes approaching the kinds of questions asked in this post even more difficult than they already are.
Beliefs are convictions based on observations of phenomena for which no satisfactory empirical explanation has been found. Their key properties are that they are required for an understanding of the world, and they are capable of being modified or supplanted. On this definition, all human knowledge necessarily rests on a body of tacitly accepted beliefs.
Faith, in the other hand, characteristically has no reason for being. That is, it is a conviction, or set of convictions, that are superfluous to an understanding of the world. It also typically deep-seated within the psyche, so that the abandonment of faith usually leads to severe trials of readjustment, if not downright nihilism.
This is not to disparage faith, as much as it might seem so. It is just an attempt to distinguish and separate between two concepts, the confusion of which makes approaching the kinds of questions asked in this post even more difficult than they already are.
Most of us are for sure, but there's lots of different kinds of believers. There's the dogmatic ones who may or may not be following a death cult, there's the enlightened ones who've convinced themselves that they don't even believe in anything. There's the ones who believe in themself, there's the ones who believe in the universe... and there might even be some who don't believe in anything at all.
Random thought
I once went under for surgery and during that time I did not experience time. I didn't dream. I think that is what death is like. In which case I hope mine is painless. Still sucks but if we don't get consciousness transfer to machines figured out (roam space as some Neuman satellite) then yeah... Just an inevitability and unfortunately I don't seem to have a genuine drive/perhaps mental capacity to figure it out (not a math person).
I once went under for surgery and during that time I did not experience time. I didn't dream. I think that is what death is like. In which case I hope mine is painless. Still sucks but if we don't get consciousness transfer to machines figured out (roam space as some Neuman satellite) then yeah... Just an inevitability and unfortunately I don't seem to have a genuine drive/perhaps mental capacity to figure it out (not a math person).
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, NRSV)
I am a Christian - my beliefs and faith are based on the evidences provided both in Scripture, observing those around me, and the work of the Holy Spirit within me
If I am 100% deceived, I'll never know
However, such certainty of unbelief is also 100% irrational: you have to be as convinced (if not more so) there is no deity as I am there is one
I am a Christian - my beliefs and faith are based on the evidences provided both in Scripture, observing those around me, and the work of the Holy Spirit within me
If I am 100% deceived, I'll never know
However, such certainty of unbelief is also 100% irrational: you have to be as convinced (if not more so) there is no deity as I am there is one
I sometimes feel "belief" is a term used for things that are not readily provable, but also impossible to disprove. E.g. I believe God exists.
An axiom, in my mind, is a stronger, more widespread belief, for which there are no known counter examples. It aligns with your natural intuition, because you've never seen an axiomatic belief violated.
An axiom, in my mind, is a stronger, more widespread belief, for which there are no known counter examples. It aligns with your natural intuition, because you've never seen an axiomatic belief violated.
> I see chronic uncertainty everywhere?
The only certainty is uncertainty
The only certainty is uncertainty
> The possibility that we cannot collectively reach an all-knowing state makes me uncomfortable?
I guess that's the meaning of life: living it without knowing what it actually is (in a fundamental level). General relativity, arts, quantum mechanics, religion, philosophy, informatics, or what not can take us just so far, but not more. I appreciate science because it allows me to post on HN and get vaccinated. I appreciate philosophy because it fulfils my soul. I appreciate religion because it works for my parents. But we are limited in what we can understand. If we believe that with our human tools we can ever discover the true meaning of everything (not just our universe), then we think too much of ourselves.
I guess that's the meaning of life: living it without knowing what it actually is (in a fundamental level). General relativity, arts, quantum mechanics, religion, philosophy, informatics, or what not can take us just so far, but not more. I appreciate science because it allows me to post on HN and get vaccinated. I appreciate philosophy because it fulfils my soul. I appreciate religion because it works for my parents. But we are limited in what we can understand. If we believe that with our human tools we can ever discover the true meaning of everything (not just our universe), then we think too much of ourselves.
True randomness produces ordered structures, so determinism emerges from it and both of them coexist, it's a matter of space-time scale.
Let us assume you/us/we reach an all-knowing state? Then what? There would be no further step needed, nor desired. For if that's the end goal, then once we have arrived, there would be no further wanting to act upon. Else it isn't the end goal - ceasing to exist seems like a compelling next step.
We act like we know, because it's comforting to do so. Naturally we fall into patterns where we can exert control, feel we have a sense of autonomy, and have things occur with predictability.
As an avid supporter of science, I think you're quick to rely upon it. If it holds all the answers, they won't be unfolding in our meagre lifespans. What I consider greater than science, is experience. Whatever you actually experience cannot be explained away, it is the ground truth. Whether you're experiencing illusion, delusion, or confusion - they are themselves experiences and it cannot be denied that you're having them.
You find everything hollow and lacking because you're looking for meaning and purpose over there, not here. The great thing about the 'here' is it's about as solid as anything can be, and you need not seek anything more than it. It's not going anywhere, and you're welcome at any time to turn your mind upon itself. It is here that contentment, acceptance, timelessness and beauty exist. And when one is content, questions such as yours tend not to arise.
Your experience is the landscape which everything arises. Absolutely everything. Sure, there seems to be a thriving physical world beyond the bounds, and independent of, you. Though without the 'you' to experience it, it's meaningless.
You're never going to get the answers you seek. So stop seeking.
Enjoy each moment. Easier said than done right? Minds are akin to rafts on the open sea, being thrust this way and that. Sitting upon, and identifying with a torrent of thoughts. We identify with these thoughts and they carry us to and fro.
When is that last time you noticed a thought arise? For surely they do. And when is the last time you observed a thought arise, and chose not to identify with it? Thoughts are not you, for you can stand aside and watch them appear and dissipate.
Make a point of sitting back and getting comfy in the cinema of your experience. What will your next thought be? Wait and see. There will surely be one.
Did it carry you away? Do it again. You will start to see thoughts arise all of their own, and you can simply watch them. The tendency is to BE the thought, and this need not be.
The space that is left to experience in the absence of thought will ease the doubts and fear that assail your mind. For these too are the realm of thought identification.
We act like we know, because it's comforting to do so. Naturally we fall into patterns where we can exert control, feel we have a sense of autonomy, and have things occur with predictability.
As an avid supporter of science, I think you're quick to rely upon it. If it holds all the answers, they won't be unfolding in our meagre lifespans. What I consider greater than science, is experience. Whatever you actually experience cannot be explained away, it is the ground truth. Whether you're experiencing illusion, delusion, or confusion - they are themselves experiences and it cannot be denied that you're having them.
You find everything hollow and lacking because you're looking for meaning and purpose over there, not here. The great thing about the 'here' is it's about as solid as anything can be, and you need not seek anything more than it. It's not going anywhere, and you're welcome at any time to turn your mind upon itself. It is here that contentment, acceptance, timelessness and beauty exist. And when one is content, questions such as yours tend not to arise.
Your experience is the landscape which everything arises. Absolutely everything. Sure, there seems to be a thriving physical world beyond the bounds, and independent of, you. Though without the 'you' to experience it, it's meaningless.
You're never going to get the answers you seek. So stop seeking.
Enjoy each moment. Easier said than done right? Minds are akin to rafts on the open sea, being thrust this way and that. Sitting upon, and identifying with a torrent of thoughts. We identify with these thoughts and they carry us to and fro.
When is that last time you noticed a thought arise? For surely they do. And when is the last time you observed a thought arise, and chose not to identify with it? Thoughts are not you, for you can stand aside and watch them appear and dissipate.
Make a point of sitting back and getting comfy in the cinema of your experience. What will your next thought be? Wait and see. There will surely be one.
Did it carry you away? Do it again. You will start to see thoughts arise all of their own, and you can simply watch them. The tendency is to BE the thought, and this need not be.
The space that is left to experience in the absence of thought will ease the doubts and fear that assail your mind. For these too are the realm of thought identification.
I see chronic uncertainty everywhere? The possibility that we cannot collectively reach an all-knowing state makes me uncomfortable?
Math is not complete? Gödel says math has holes?
We are not all knowing, but it seems that we act like we do?
People say there's determinism your future is fixed, done? Just don't worry, there's nothing that can be done about it? How do you know for sure whether there is determinism or true randomness? Everything can be explained away by science? It is the only thing we have?
You think, so you believe you are? Do you question your existence, are you out of your mind? I would like to?
Could it be that we like to hide behind big words and terms for comfort? Or is ignorance a form of comfort?
Going beyond meta? No, not the Metaverse? I mean beyond things? Is there even a beyond? Can we go beyond by our "own means"? Or what we "have"? We cannot escape? We are trapped in West-Bumble nowhere?
6 basic operations for all computation? No (hyper-)computation beyond?
How come we rely on beliefs, or "axioms"? Why can we just describe things in physics and not explain why it is the way it is?
We just assume or belief, as if we know deep inside that we don't actually know? Do we like the word "belief"? No, so we choose a fancy word: "axiom"? "Conjecture"?
Why so many question marks? Because I don't know for sure? Do you?
"Ignorance is bliss." - Cypher
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/88/what-would-it-mean-to-disprove-church-turing-thesis